I see it all the time, someone dares to say uncomfortable reality-based everyone-who-lives-outside-in-real-world heresies and some online person walks by acting like a child born yesterday yet wandering into adult topics and asking them to spell out the dangerous heresy in the most evidence-I-can-screenshot-and-share for manner?
> Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sealioning-int...
And, for the avoidance of doubt, it was no part of my purpose to go trawling for "evidence I can screenshot and share", and I think that accusation is well out of order. Nor was I intending to be any sort of troll. I genuinely wanted to know.
It seems to me that your position is that it should be possible to nudge-nudge-wink-wink state potentially-racist-looking views, but not possible for anyone to ask exactly what's being stated. Which means it's also not possible for them to be examined or criticized. I don't think any views should be immune to examination and criticism, and it's not obvious to me that things like "gangs of North African / Middle Eastern immigrants are stalking the beaches of France and Denmark looking for women to assault" belong high on any list of candidates for such privileged treatment.
(Is that thing in quotation marks actually a fair representation of what decremental was hinting at? Well, there's the thing: I can't tell, because he only hinted at it, and you find it objectionable that I tried to find out more precisely what it was he was hinting at.)
How is that applicable here? The poster they responded to simply claims something they most likely cant prove (and neither can you), else they wouldn't have started their argument with "willing to bet" - which in turn means that their opinion is most likely based on bigotry, else they would have simply posted the source as an answer to the original article.
Let's say that one really does have a point, that would stand on it's own if you were more explicit, and someone asks you to elaborate on why you came to that conclusion. What exactly do you lose by doing so? What rhetorical ground has your interlocutor gained? What is the proposed mechanism of this supposed bad faith tactic?
The only possible answer I can see is, "a moment of your time," which is pretty unconvincing. If you don't think the question is worth your time, fine, don't answer it. But there's no scenario where answering it harms your argument, but you still had a solid argument.
It's just that people disagree with you about what is supposedly self evident and real.
Speaking of which, what is exactly is the "reality-based" heresy you think GP "dared" to say? You seem to be agreeing with something but too sheepish to spell it out. HN is supposed to be a place for discussion, so please state your actual opinion if you want to participate in a discussion.
EDIT: You can hold "heretical" opinions and not be a coward, by the way. I'm neither a liberal nor a libertarian so my political opinions fall well outside the general consensus both online and offline and I've faced pushback in all kinds of spaces. But if you talk politics with me, I'll openly tell you my beliefs without sugarcoating them.
Or do only despicable North Koreans criticise the leader?
As a leftists I would say "kinda", iff you manage to do so in a way that actually violates the law and gets you sent to prison as the US prison industrial complex in part exists to provide extremely cheap domestic labor. But even then I would argue that despite the negligence the prison system shows to the health and safety of its inmates the conditions are hardly comparable to what political prisoners face in North Korea.
You're right that morals are somewhat subjective (and, I'd argue, rarely consistent because nobody bothers thinking through all the implications of the absolute moral claims they make) but if you for example hold any of the positions I described in the first paragraph of this comment, I'd argue that the problem isn't "hot takes", the problem is a diametrically opposed idea of what "good" and "harmful" mean when making moral assessments.
And no, there aren't forced labour camps, but that risk is never there for many westerners. what constitutes a risk is relative.
You are the one who brought up North Korea. I'm relieved to hear that you don't think you'll literally be thrown in a forced labor camp for having bad opinions but what's the point of bringing it up if it's not at all comparable? What threats to your life are you facing for being explicit about your opinions rather than hiding them behind euphemisms, ambiguity and plausible deniability?
I have no knowledge of this being the case, although I do stand by the fact that a disparity in rates of sexual abuse by men of different ethnic groups exists.
This is, of course, the sort of topic that is unlikely to be discussed honestly without the protection of anonymity, and even then many people, particularly women, have ideological beliefs that deny or excuse the above and would prevent them from expressing agreement other than to blame "men" in general.
Obviously you cannot say that in public, much less do anything about it. So women chose to go to less crowded beaches.
But I would say, as a nudist, that the biggest problem are the cell cams everywhere. A decade ago, someone could sneak a photo or a short video for his own pleasure, and at SD at best. Today the video is posted 4K on xvideos as it's being recorded. Not funny.
And I'll assume this unless you can prove that this is at Most an isolated incident that racists use to prop up their propaganda.
But I'm guessing you did this as some sort of weird gotcha that doesn't make sense: One can get a feel for different sorts of racism in the world by communicating with folks different from yourself.
> One can get a feel for different sorts of racism in the world by communicating with folks different from yourself.
Great, and who did you talk to, what did they say, and how did you determine their biases?